Damn! That should be “threw him off.”:smack:
Any reasonable reading of the phrase “I had a meeting with a senior advisor to Bush” indicates that the comment wasn’t off-the-cuff. I mean, nobody’s saying it was read from a written statement the guy had prepared on index cards, but it’s clear from the context of that paragraph that Suskind had a formal meeting with the senior advisor, in which the senior advisor wanted to communicate the White House’s displeasure with the article. To suggest that anything communicated during that meeting was the product of the senior advisor somehow flying by the seat of his pants and saying any random thing that came into his mind seems somewhat silly.
See, I got the opposite effect when I read it. It was more like, “Oooohhhh! So that’s what they meant. Hmmm, well, they’re not going to be able to implement that.” Or, “Sounds a little naive - wonder how they’ll fund it.” Or, “That makes sense. That could be a good benefit.”
Though I agree that it’s about as exciting as reading a prescription drug insert.
You don’t know the context. One can make an off the cuff remark in the context of a formal meeting.
Anyway, it’s all irrelevant.
Liberals picked up and ran with a flattering statement by (maybe) Karl Rove. I bet he loved it, liberals running around sounding like even bigger elitist douchebags than ever before. It probably helped his job a great deal.
I think the giggling was an attempt to brush Stewarts jokes off and to continue to patronize him by calling him ‘cute’. Her real aim was to address the audience directly using the show as her soap box.
No one wants what she says is in there. If the public insists, just rewrite the fucking paragraph to be clearer.
“Flattering” how?
Because they are chuffed with the idea that their ideas are based on ‘fact’, and use it to say that they are more grounded in reality.
Oh man, I should have known not to click on the extended interview, and then come here to read this entire thread about it.
OT, (and not trying to dip my toes in *this *pool): I remember the boards reaction to Bush being compared to Hitler. It wasn’t good.
I just said it because it was brought up.
Please… continue your spirited conversation! I can only try to follow all the arguing about semantics, and who-calls-who what, in this endless name calling… ball of – I don’t know – ‘rolling snow’ on top of *more ‘snow’ – and it’s the ‘WET’ kind of ‘snow’… the kind that really ‘sticks’! I can’t promises I’ll catch everything everyone is throwing. But trying *to understand these arguments at least help me find ‘firmer’ ground in which I stand, I’ll endure the head-aches for as long as I can.
It’s just all this name calling, branding, and labeling is really getting to me. Obama’s a “Socialist”, and “Socialist” means; “The N-Word”. “You started it”. “No, YOU started it.” I’m not going to list how many members in specific parties are guilty of this, (I don’t care), I’m just saying retractors should find a more productive way to combat it rather than resorting to the same. I’m saying this ‘in general’ and not to any specific poster, or even to the SDMB community as a whole.
Just posing an idea.
So, proceed…
Then it should be orders of magnitude easier to find examples, shouldn’t it?
Whoosh.
“Left leaning Democrats” don’t typically oppose universal health care so passionately, or oppose gay marriage as passionately as you have elsewhere, or go to such extremes to claim they’re just as bad as right-wing Republicans.
Oh, I get it, you’re trying the “I’m just playing devil’s advocate” stuff again, right, just like you did through untold pages in GD? Take it to the Freepers instead; they might buy it.
What part of “decades” didn’t you get?
The one you’re so passionately arguing.
Here’s a hint: That is not a common term among “left-wing Democrats”. Your disguise is slipping.
If it was “orders of magnitude” more common, then show us. Should be easy, huh?
You apparently missed the part where I asked what difference it made.
I comprehend very well that you’re now flailing about in hopes of grasping something solid to keep you from drowning in a pool of hate, Mr. “Left Wing Democrat” 
“They”? Isn’t the term you wish to use “we”? 
If you’re claiming that being grounded in facts is no better than being grounded in imagination, then a board devoted to Fighting Ignorance might not be the best fit for you.
Ok… dipping a toe in a little bit. I remember when he was, and I think it was pretty big, (I think). In the beginning of The Daily Show the night before, (maybe it was two), they had quite a lot of Bush-as-Hitler footage. What does it matter?
Specifically, it should be easy to find references to this Bushitler character I have heard so much of here in the past couple months. Wherease up until then I had NEVER seen it in print.
My other query as to cites that EVERYONE used to call him Bushitler weren’t answered then, and I suspect no plethora of cites will be coming this time either.
Um…no. If you think Rove intended it to be flattering, or that journalists took it that way, I’m really not sure what to tell you.
I see what you are saying, I don’t remember “Bushitler”. It’s not very clever.
FWIW, Google has 162 times as many hits for “Obama Socialist” as for “Bushitler”.
Minus 2 orders of magnitude, IOW.
It was, I gave you a cite in like two seconds before.
Google results for Bush Fascist
Can you cite when I have opposed either? Idiot partisans are idiot partisans regardless of party.
Where did I oppose UHC anywhere on this board? Give me a cite.
What part of bills aren’t written over the course of decades did you not get?
What side am I arguing? I am not sure you even know.
LOL, my identity is wrong eh?
It was quite easy. Here are the google results for Bushitler.
Because it’s easy to abuse the context? You don’t think it matters which official said what? You think it might have been Colin Powell? If not then why? Context matters.
LOL, you’re the one hatin’ here. I’m the one defending the hated group. Funny how that’s hate in your world. 
Not really, I prefer to distance myself from people like yourself politically. I am a left-leaning centrist liberal, but I don’t call myself a liberal because I mean it a little bit differently than you do. I am a liberal in that I believe firmly in global capitalism. I am not a liberal in the sense that you are a liberal.
LOL, you’re amazing. You are some kind of anomaly, you can write, but you can’t read.
Not journalists, not (maybe)Rove, the Liberals who took it and ran with it DailyKos and SDMB types.
Except that wasn’t the comparison to be made. You’re not very good at this whole rigor thing are you?
- Of course Obama would have more hits it’s more current.
- Obama Socialist is not the same as Bushitler, look up Bush Fascist.
- If you look up Bush Hitler and Obama Hitler Bush has about 7,160,000 and Obama has about 12,200,000, which makes sense since it’s more current.
Yeah, you failed miserably at this game. You don’t even know how to score it properly.
Bush Fascist 1,990,000
Obama Socialist 4,760,000
So yeah, two orders of magnitude, judging a current President vs an out of office President. Google doesn’t list how many pages it searches prominently anymore. I’d be interested to see how many more pages it is searching today than it was in 2003 so we can get an idea of what kind of variation we should expect since blogging of course is much more widespread today than it was in 2003. I don’t know how to look it up but I bet the number of pages topped 4m at least in 2003.
“Orders of magnitude”, you said.
Google hits:
“Bushitler” 29,400
“Bush fascist” 1,990,000
“Obama Hitler” 12,200,000
“Obama Nazi” 36,200,000
“Obama fascist” 3,410,000
Try any other combinations you like.
What is your definition of “orders of magnitude”? :dubious:
As you said yourself, your thread is your cite.
What matters is that the term you’re so strenuously trying to claim is from “the liberals” is from the top level of the Bush White House itself. How is that not clear?
The rest of your post is just more “No, YOU are!” stuff of the type that most people outgrow by the age of 8 or so. It speaks for itself.